Had my first anti-photographers 'run-in'....

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my encounter I only told Mr Busybody to go forth an multiply after being subjected to rudeness and some nasty insinuations.

Had he come over and been polite I would have quite happily chatted away with him and even shown him what I'd been taking photographs of as I've often done in the past.

If someone is making unfounded, and very loud, allegations in public about someone then they can hardly expect a polite response.
 
gm43uk said:
In my encounter I only told Mr Busybody to go forth an multiply after being subjected to rudeness and some nasty insinuations.

Had he come over and been polite I would have quite happily chatted away with him and even shown him what I'd been taking photographs of as I've often done in the past.

If someone is making unfounded, and very loud, allegations in public about someone then they can hardly expect a polite response.
Click to expand...

Apologies - my post was not intended to criticise behaviour of people here.

It was more a comment that when expecting someone to be hostile it is easy to become somewhat hostile in return - which results in the expected hostile encounter (as they react in turn).

If you read one of Bernie's earlier posts he states that he arrested someone
on shall we say dubious grounds, mostly consisting of I was really not happy with Mr Respectable
Click to expand...
In that case, it turns out the person was thoroughly dodgy, but it could equally well have been an innocent person reacting to perceived / expected hostility by the police.
 
Faldrax said:
Apologies - my post was not intended to criticise behaviour of people here.

It was more a comment that when expecting someone to be hostile it is easy to become somewhat hostile in return - which results in the expected hostile encounter (as they react in turn).

If you read one of Bernie's earlier posts he states that he arrested someone

In that case, it turns out the person was thoroughly dodgy, but it could equally well have been an innocent person reacting to perceived / expected hostility by the police.
Click to expand...

No apologies needed, I didn't think you were criticising anyone here :)
 
Ok here is my opinion; If you have nothing to hide then why be evasive?

Quite a lot of the time a busy body can be placated by simply talking to them and offering to show them your photo's. One of the quickest ways to make a busy body to leave is to deliberately bore them with technical details (although some enjoy this).

When I'm dealing with the public either as a Police Officer or whilst out doing photography I always aim to be polite as I've found through years of experience that it's very hard for people to continue being rude to you if you are polite with them (hard but not impossible). Obviously if you are approached by someone and they are just a busy body the Police will not look too fondly on you trying to claim distress, however if they are aggressive or attempt to grab you or your kit and you genuinely fear that they are going to cause you harm or attempt to rob you, then yes a crime will have been committed and the Police will help you.
 
Ubique said:
Ok here is my opinion; If you have nothing to hide then why be evasive?

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

Who are these self appointed upholders of our society that feel they have the right to suspect us of what are pretty awful crimes? and why are their minds so twisted they see bad in someone they've never met? More importantly what are these people going to do if they find someone is actually doing something they shouldn't? and does anyone really think the guy with the camera is really going to hold his hands up and say 'fair cop Guv... I'll just wait here until the Police arrive' ...... :shrug:


If you've got nothing to hide then tell them to 'mind their own business' and if you have something to hide then smack them in the mouth and clear off, sharpish.
 
Faldrax
Firstly, the number of people doing what you claim is actually very small in comparison to the number of people who take photos. It's certainly true that this sort of thread on this sort of site blows the whole thing up out of proportion. More so when you realise that actually, the reports on here are very one sided, not always going to be the 'whole truth' and a certain amount of gilding the lilly goes on.
I'd suggest that this sort of discussion is what fuels the fire not the reality.
Like I said, I've been stopped a fair number of times, even had a visit from Special Branch because of the sort of photography I do. It's never been a problem, I've never been stopped from doing what I enjoy. Being asked to justify it, isn't a big issue. Yes, I find the busybodies a pain, but once they start to quote non existent law, simply telling them to go phone the local plod shuts them up. Again, they have never prevented me from doing what I enjoy.

Splog, although they are a pain, read back and you have your answer, they have as much of a right to ask you as you do to take photos. In fact neither of you has a right as such, as has been explained.
 
Bernie

They can ask, but I won't play theirpathetic games.
 
I can see this from both sides:

As a parent who attends and flies at kite festivals frequently with her children I have been asked if I mind my kids having their photos taken for publicity, i have always agreed to it so long as the boys are happy to have it taken!

But as somone who works in a school with many "looked after children" whose photos cannot be used for any display etc where they can be seen publicly for the childs safety/security, it has made me think twice before taking any photos of children that I dont know.
 
Only slightly off topic, but confrontational anyway. Years ago I was wandering around the jewellery quarter in Kuala Lumpur. The shops are open to the street, and have one or two guards sitting outside, armed with pump-action shotguns. I pointed at one of the guards in sign language, and at my camera meaning "can I take a photo?" He shook his head meaning "No". I put my camera to my eye, and as I did so, he racked his shotgun.
Sometimes No means No.
 
Bluehawk said:
Only slightly off topic, but confrontational anyway. Years ago I was wandering around the jewellery quarter in Kuala Lumpur. The shops are open to the street, and have one or two guards sitting outside, armed with pump-action shotguns. I pointed at one of the guards in sign language, and at my camera meaning "can I take a photo?" He shook his head meaning "No". I put my camera to my eye, and as I did so, he racked his shotgun.
Sometimes No means No.
Click to expand...

A shotgun ALWAYS means NO!:)
 
Bernie174 said:
Being asked to justify it, isn't a big issue. Yes, I find the busybodies a pain, but once they start to quote non existent law, simply telling them to go phone the local plod shuts them up. Again, they have never prevented me from doing what I enjoy.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely on that. I've never had a problem with the Police asking me what I'm up to, or security staff for that matter. What I do have an issue with is when they (either type) start misquoting the law (TA2000 being the usual one) and overstepping the bounds of their authority. For the most part this tends to be private security, followed by PCSOs and then, rarely nowadays, trained Police Officers.

When it comes to being questioned, historically an awful lot of the problem has been provoked by the photographer themselves and PHNAT has proved very much to be a dual edged sword.

Ubique said:
Ok here is my opinion...
Click to expand...

A propos nothing to do with this thread, are you an ex Wedge or ex Plank? :D
 
Bernie174 said:
Splog

Then you are as much of a cause of the very minor problems we sometimes face as those that ask...
Click to expand...
I can't see how that can be possible?
 
Demi
With luck, one of the advantages of Government spending cuts, there'll be less PCSO's. While they are cheaper, they have very little flexibility in how they are employed.

Splog.
Its very simply because as soon as you start being ignorant and rude, which is what ignoring people is, you get their backs up. So instead of

Q:hello maybe what are you doing.
A: I'm just taking a few pictures, its my hobby.

You, by your actions turn it into a 3 ring circus. Mr BB/MOP gets the hump, calls Police. Police arrive, and ask lots of questions etc. You get the hump and come on here whining, leaving out the bits that make you look like what you.
People who've never had any issues assume you are telling the whole story, and start their silly rants, even though they've never had an encounter, and so they circle keeps going.
Its far easier to tell them what you're going. If they then don't like it, or misquote, then fine, let them call the old bill. But why cause a minor issue to become an major one?
 
Less PSCO's? There are likely to be more; not to mention the private security companies that are now being hired as community wardens with extended powers!

It's going to get worse before it gets better! :)
 
It only takes a few seconds to put someones mind at rest if they question what you are doing. I always give the busybody types a moment of my time to explain and they usually go off (with a business card in their hand) and are happy with my explanation. I do get a bit frustrated when it happens a few times in one day, but having an attitude will just make these people even more suspicious of someone holding a camera and they will probably give someone else grief another day.
 
Bernie174 said:
Demi
With luck, one of the advantages of Government spending cuts, there'll be less PCSO's. While they are cheaper, they have very little flexibility in how they are employed.

Splog.
Its very simply because as soon as you start being ignorant and rude, which is what ignoring people is, you get their backs up. So instead of

Q:hello maybe what are you doing.
A: I'm just taking a few pictures, its my hobby.

You, by your actions turn it into a 3 ring circus. Mr BB/MOP gets the hump, calls Police. Police arrive, and ask lots of questions etc. You get the hump and come on here whining, leaving out the bits that make you look like what you.
People who've never had any issues assume you are telling the whole story, and start their silly rants, even though they've never had an encounter, and so they circle keeps going.
Its far easier to tell them what you're going. If they then don't like it, or misquote, then fine, let them call the old bill. But why cause a minor issue to become an major one?
Click to expand...

Bernie
You have mde a few assumptions and are quite wrong. I have no problems with thr police asking questions, but I Do have a problem with people who see fit to judge me when they don't know me. I have never been stopped but I have been called a few things when taking photos. The people I am referring to are the morons who can't allow live and let live. These people are not in my opinion worthy of my time. And I would hope that if the police arrived as you describe they would be a little more impartial than you seem to be!
 
Splg

So you've had passing idiots calling you names while taking photos. Big deal! I remember the first time I saw my name in graffiti, saying I was something more normally found at the top of a lady's legs.

But what you are describing isn't what we are talking about. People scream abuse at Train spotters, plane spotters or old bill or people they don't like. That isn't the same as someone who is genuinely concerned that you might (not are definitely) be doing something you shouldn't.

Would you complain if a member of the public said something to someone who was drunk and unlocking their car? No, but what if they were unlocking it to get their coat to walk home?

Would you complain if someone was stopped by a member of the public leaving a shop, by passing the check out, carrying a pint of milk in a plastic container branded for that supermarket? No, you wouldn't, but what would happen if they'd already paid for it, and then realised they wanted to look at the bananas, and then decided not to buy them? Again, innocent, but it may not be.

You say that you object to people making assumptions about you, yet you are doing exactly that about peoples reasons, it's called hypocrisy.

The assumptions I made are based on experience but you admit you have never been stopped by, anyone!

The simple answer is to just politely answer any question. If they go beyond and misquote law, then suggest they call police. They probably wont. But if you decline to say anything then they almost certainly will. Is that going to help you? No, because they it becomes a full blown event.

If that's what you want, then you are a fool.
 
Bernie

What is a full blown event supposed to be? A couple of coppers in a police car asking a few questions? Big deal.....

Since when was refusing to talk to strangers about personal stuff such a problem? I can't think of any crime that either by carrying a camera or using it in a public place could happen. As for your milk carton analogy :lol: You certainly don't sound like any copper I've ever met. More like traffic warden with nothing to do.
 
Bernie174 said:
Would you complain if a member of the public said something to someone who was drunk and unlocking their car? No, but what if they were unlocking it to get their coat to walk home?
Click to expand...

Bernie, while I actually enjoy the tone and calming influence of your posts, your analogy above is an actual crime, pointing your camera in public is not, and whilst I have sympathy for most people in difficult circumstances, being bullied /intimidated by a busybody would get my heckles up. I would question their reason for asking, if it was not for what I believe to be a reasonable query, they would get told where to go. Even the general public (me) have a knack of reading people and determining if they are legit or PITA's.

Phil.
 
Phil

No, its not thats just the point I am trying to make, and which you're demonstrating very well. neither of the examples are a crime, but both look like they could be.
There are circumstances where, and I know people don't like it, photography can look to an outsider like crime as well.
Now why is acceptable to ask or inquire about 2 things that are unconnected with photography, and not when there's a camera involved? None of them are a crime, but all could be.
I doubt if many of the incidents people have mentioned on here are anything other than people thinking they are doing the right thing, and certainly not bulling or attempts at intimidation.

Splog
I don't think resorting to insult helps your argument, albeit, there's nothing that can help an insipid, baseless and childish point, as you so clearly demonstrate.
 
Bernie174 said:
Splog
I don't think resorting to insult helps your argument, albeit, there's nothing that can help an insipid, baseless and childish point, as you so clearly demonstrate.
Click to expand...

:lol:

The only insults in this thread seem to be from you, but I do apologise for suggesting you sound like traffic warden with nothing to do :lol:

I'll leave you to your paranoid world of suspicion, doubt and curtain twitchers.
 
I've known a few thieves and burglars commit their crime on bicycles, following your argument it would be equally valid to stop and question any cyclist!

"Hello , what's that you've got then?"
"It's a bicycle ... why?"
"Well we can't be too careful, all sorts of people ride bicycles you know!"

:cuckoo:
 
I would have thought pedos wouldn't really be interested in photos of kids clothed, and terrorists would be more inclinded to take less risk (like not walking around buildings with a large dlsr). I would focus more on people with mobile phones and small point and shoot cameras hanging around swimming pools or taking photos of buildings.
 
Bernie174 said:
Phil

No, its not thats just the point I am trying to make, and which you're demonstrating very well. neither of the examples are a crime, but both look like they could be.
Click to expand...

From a policeman (or ex) I would have thought you would know better :shrug:

......... where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

It is 'customary' to use common sense in each case, as would be with a photographer being in charge of a camera. Now let's not split hairs, we all know that if approached in the correct manner, most 'normal everyday' photographers would be willing to discuss his/her intentions, asked in an authorative manner without knowledge, would rise most peoples heckles. Afterall, police/security/mop's are known to be human to on occasions. :thumbs:

Phil.
 
I think bernie has been completely brainwashed by the police!! Everyone everywhere is a suspect!
 
Last edited:
Phil

Its intent that is at issue. Yes, you are correct as far as it goes. BUT if someone is only getting access to get a coat to walk home, then there is no court that will convict.
Hence why I said, it could be a crime, but could be innocent.

But, how do you know that without asking?

Now translate that to photography.

Chris's point is that he thinks that anyone who's using a camera in connection with crime must only use a camera phone or compact. Sadly, thats an incorrect assumption, as I've already been through. So in my earlier example, man with an SLR on Clapham common, To be fair, was probably one of 10 or 20 that day. On the face of it, he was more likely than not doing nothing criminal, except he was. How would I have known that if I hadn't asked him what he was doing? Simple answer is, I wouldn't.

So were back to the original point. Cameras are used in crime. Thats all types of camera, not just DSLR's. While everyone excepts that very few people with a camera are criminal, if you put yourself in a position where it could be viewed as doing something you shouldn't be, then you shouldn't be surprised you get asked. In those circumstances, what harm does a quick explanation do? Nothing. Is it better to give that, than wait for the Old Bill, and go through the full rigmarole with them?

Now, nearly every story on here has involved kids in some way, all perfectly innocent, but think about it, does it look that way to an outsider?

You are correct, with the exception of Splog, most are, and I'm sure that the comments on here are more a case of 'I'm big and brave cause I'm on the internet'.


Phil,
You probably don't want to look at a pedophiles collection of snaps. Trust me, it does not only involve nudity. They get their kicks from all sorts, glimpse of thigh, bum, and all the things you'd probably find alluring if it was a clothed adult female!
 
I keep reading that people can't commit a crime with a camera.

Of course they can. Stand on private property and aim your 400mm lens through the bathroom window of someone and take photo's of them naked. Then try and tell a judge you weren't committing a crime, and for those wondering, it's called invasion of privacy.

Just because you aren't committing a crime doesn't mean it isn't possible to do so with a camera.
 
Bernie174 said:
You are correct, with the exception of Splog, most are, and I'm sure that the comments on here are more a case of 'I'm big and brave cause I'm on the internet
Click to expand...

Bernie
Once gain you resort to insults! but that's okay with me. What's 'big and brave' about my posts? Perhaps you simply can't accept someone disagreeing with you?

So you questioned someone who had a camera and they turned out to have commited crimes... I fail to see the link to photographers, unless you are suggesting that photographers are more likely to be paedophiles?

Did the guy you stopped drive a car and did he have a bald head? Stereotyping by the Police is not a good thing for any of us.
 
Just playing devils advocate regarding kids in clothes and paedos being interested in them, surely as disgusting as it is, unless they have some kind of parole terms they are not actually breaking any law taking pictures of clothed children. So if that is the case why should someone taking pictures around clothed children in a public area get any issues.
 
And on another issue just happening to catch someone that was doing something wrong is not a reason to question people without cause. If a black person gets stopped by the police because they are black would there be as much argument against the outrage?
 
joescrivens said:
I keep reading that people can't commit a crime with a camera.

Of course they can. Stand on private property and aim your 400mm lens through the bathroom window of someone and take photo's of them naked. Then try and tell a judge you weren't committing a crime, and for those wondering, it's called invasion of privacy.

Just because you aren't committing a crime doesn't mean it isn't possible to do so with a camera.
Click to expand...

Joe

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all.
 
Bernie174 said:
Phil

Its intent that is at issue. Yes, you are correct as far as it goes. BUT if someone is only getting access to get a coat to walk home, then there is no court that will convict.
Hence why I said, it could be a crime, but could be innocent.

But, how do you know that without asking?

Now translate that to photography.

Chris's point is that he thinks that anyone who's using a camera in connection with crime must only use a camera phone or compact. Sadly, thats an incorrect assumption, as I've already been through. So in my earlier example, man with an SLR on Clapham common, To be fair, was probably one of 10 or 20 that day. On the face of it, he was more likely than not doing nothing criminal, except he was. How would I have known that if I hadn't asked him what he was doing? Simple answer is, I wouldn't.

So were back to the original point. Cameras are used in crime. Thats all types of camera, not just DSLR's. While everyone excepts that very few people with a camera are criminal, if you put yourself in a position where it could be viewed as doing something you shouldn't be, then you shouldn't be surprised you get asked. In those circumstances, what harm does a quick explanation do? Nothing. Is it better to give that, than wait for the Old Bill, and go through the full rigmarole with them?

Now, nearly every story on here has involved kids in some way, all perfectly innocent, but think about it, does it look that way to an outsider?

You are correct, with the exception of Splog, most are, and I'm sure that the comments on here are more a case of 'I'm big and brave cause I'm on the internet'.


Phil,
You probably don't want to look at a pedophiles collection of snaps. Trust me, it does not only involve nudity. They get their kicks from all sorts, glimpse of thigh, bum, and all the things you'd probably find alluring if it was a clothed adult female!
Click to expand...

Bernie, thanks for confirming that I was right in my analogy with the car & keys, although you skirt around the issue of law and common sense in its use :suspect:

Back to the OP's original post, he was working as an official photographer, every right to be there and every right to shoot pics of whoever he chose. It was the 'jobsworth' without the correct information, probably trying to do the right thing, although misinformed, that was the cause of the issues. It is in these circumstances that we (as photographers) get irate. Just as you (im assuming here) would every Friday night with the binge drinkers, it's not illegal to be drunk, but could be if it gets out of the social scope of tollerance.

As for your final paragraph, I think you were aiming it at amtaylor, and misplaced my name :thinking:

Yes, most of these types of threads involve taking pics of kids, for me, the bottom line in most complaints have seeds of the compo culture sprouting. When I took my camera to the school play, asked if I could snap away and was refused that right by a teacher. After asking if all the 'camera phones' had been refused, I was told "ok but I never saw you bring your camera in..." the school then went on to buy my pictures and display them on 2 walls.
Conclusion for me was uneducated people in charge of rules that they know nothing about.
I will stand and defend my rights, even if it 'seems' im doing wrong. Ask me what im doing, I'll tell you, tell me to stop shooting my camera and I'll tell you where to go. Common sense has all but gone in society - I still have mine.

Phil.
 
joescrivens said:
Then you haven't read the whole thread,

Cue vic:
Click to expand...

I certainly have read the thread. The quote you have referred to should be taken in the context of the whole thread and not in isolation.
 
How could it be in reply to my post? Mine was after and in reply to his although I didn't quote it as its hard on a phone to only quote part and it was a long post.

I might go into business making a shirts that say "I'm a photographer not a P****!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top